New Advance In 3D TV Technology

sciencehabit writes "If you've pondered whether to sink a cool couple of grand into a fancy new three-dimensional TV but didn't want to mess around with those dorky glasses, you may want to sit tight for a few more years. Researchers at Hewlett Packard Laboratories in Palo Alto, California, report that they've come up with a new 3D technology that not only doesn't require viewers to wear special glasses, but it also can be viewed from a wide variety of angles. The advance could propel the development of mobile 3D devices as well as TVs."

Comments

Why is this taking so long?

[TubeSteak]

I remember seeing standalone 3D displays at SIGGRAPH over 10 years ago.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

My anecdotal evidence is no more powerful than yours, and you don't know me (so I'm not refuting your "only people I know" statement), but I do care about 3D. We just got a 3D TV earlier this year. Before that I got the 120Hz Asus 3D-capable monitor and Nvidia 3D setup for my 2nd monitor on my home computer, and a laptop that also runs Nvidia 3D. And I just got the Fujifilm 3D camera for stills and videos. The camera can be set to record every picture you take in both JPG (2D) and MPO (3D) formats. When viewing those pictures on my computer (or my TV), it's absolutely amazing to me how much better the 3D pictures look than their flat, 2D counterparts. A 2D photo can convey a sense of depth, to some extent, but a good 3D photograph is truly stunning!

I know it's de rigeur on /. to talk about how much we hate 3D, and complain because somehow every one of us is in the 5% (or whatever) of people who can't see 3D, but the truth is, I love 3D. When it's done well. (And there's a huge difference in movies that were shot in 3D, and those that were converted in post-production.)

So I'm not denying that 3D is a niche market. I just wanted to speak up as someone who's living in that niche, and loving it! When I take my little 3D camera out now, it's like I'm learning photography all over again. It really makes you look at the world in a new way. My biggest regret is that there aren't more people with 3D-capable displays for me to share my photos with.

(But if you're interested in seeing some of what people are doing with 3D photography, there's a site called Phereo where people can upload and share their 3D photos. And if your 3D TV is a Smart TV, they have an app you can load to view those photos on your TV. I'm not associated with them, except as an occasional user.)

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[CastrTroy]

Just checked. If you go with plasma, you can get a 50 inch 3D TV for $800. The problem is, the glasses cost $120 a piece, so by the time you've outfitted a family of 4 with glasses, you've spent $480 on glasses. So the TV is cheap, but the glasses are kind of pricey.

Re:Not Possible.

[EmperorArthur]

It's possible it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Instead of 3d as you see in theaters it might be the 3d you see in pictures. When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/tensor-display-3d-tv_n_1665976.html

I'm really excited about this technology for just that reason. I think the idea of a TV that looks just like a window would be amazing. Imagine video conferencing. Instead of having a single view of a person you could look at them from multiple angles, just as if they where in the same room.

Dot Hat

[Tablizer]

What about a special hat or hair ribbon with a reflector that tells the TV where your head is? Then it can create two images for each eye in the direction of the hat. You wouldn't need 64 different angles like the one in the article and could use existing 3D movie stock (2 images/angles per frame).

There may be a limit to the number of viewers, though, depending on how fancy the TV is, because each "beam" is custom-aimed per viewer.

Another approach is to repeat the "parallax zone" similar to the corduroy-like plastic 3D image stickers used on the cover of some children books. You'd only need two source images, not 64 with that also.

With those, you have to put your eyes into the right zone to see the 3D affect, but the zones are roughly 5 degrees apart. One might have to shift in their chair to be in the right zone.

For an over-simplification, the left image is seen at every odd number degree (35,37,39,41,...) and the right image is seen at every even degree number (36,38,40,42,...). If shift your head until the left eye is in an odd degree (say 41) and your right eye is in an even degree (say 42), then you can see the 3D image. If you move your head to 43/44 (left/right) you will be able to see it again. (At 42/43 would be seen reversed depth because the eye matches are swapped and noses would look like dimples.)

I imagine one's back would get tired of being in one spot for long, but if the zones are say 2 degrees or less apart, then one can alternate leaning to the left and then the right every 10 minutes or so in their chair to avoid getting stiff.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[peragrin]

You, like Myself and about 15% of the population don't view the world perfectly stereoscopically. therefore Fake3D!!!!! just leads to headaches and poor view performances.

If you don't need glasses, it is a start. but the real trick will be is it just another illusion or is it a hybrid of real, and fake 3D to give actual depth to images.